What a LOT (most) people are glossing over is the even BIGGER "What if" scenario...

What is the accused was actually innocent?

Without being specific to anyone, and this ONLY applies to those accused that have NOT been proven guilty in a Court of Law.

It doesn't really matter (in the sense of being proof positive) how many accusers step up. It doesn't really matter how many people BELIEVE the accusers & BELIEVE the accusations.

What truly MATTERS is what is proven in a Court of Law. If, in the end, the subject is PROVEN to be guilty in a Court of Law... Then & ONLY then should condemnation, ridicule, blacklisting, etc., occur.

Yes, it could very well turn out to be true, that the accused is proven (in a Court of Law) to be guilty. However, What If they are not guilty?

Everyone who automatically jumps to the side of the accusers could quite possibly be wrong in doing so... If the accused is never PROVEN to be guilty in a court of law.

Yes, many will say (and do say) that even if the accused are not PROVEN to be guilty in a Court of Law, that doesn't mean they aren't guilty. Indeed, but it also doesn't mean that they ARE guilty.

"How can so many people saying the same things be wrong?"

Hasn't history already answered this question? Countless times?

There's another reaction from many that bothers me in situations like this... Many say things like, "What if it was your child, sister, brother, etc. who experienced this tragedy?" After all, these people are close to your heart & you have no reason to disbelieve them? Right?

This can be countered with, "What if it was your child, sister, brother, etc., who were being accused of causing this tragedy?" After all, these people are close to your heart & you have no reason to disbelieve them? Right?

Anyway, even though some dweebs will try to see this as calling certain people "liars" or worse. This is absolutely not the case. I'm just a fervent believer in being innocent unless PROVEN guilty in a Court of Law.

...If the accused person hadn't already been caught on hidden microphone admitting to wrongdoing and having made plans to leave the country to seek therapy specifically for the things they were being accused of.

LEGALLY, what matters is what comes out in court. jail time, fines, punative measures of that sort.

REALISTICALLY, there is too much corraborating testimony, from too many different sources, over such a time frame, who would otherwise have no overriding ax to grind, that leads to condemnation of the behavior and rightly should create an aura of mistrust, both in a professional sense and a personal sense.

Legally, Weinstein might very well walk away scot free. Time will tell. Being an asshole isn't illegal, but legally there's no way to compel someone to ever again work with an asshole, either.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to guilt with respect to the law.

Yes, we should definitely avoid internet lynch mobs and witch hunts, and we should not treat accusals as evidence of guilt. But stating that all that matters is what is proven in a court of law is taking things to a ridiculous extreme.

Case in point: OJ Simpson. Do people believe his acquittal means he is innocent? I'm not saying the law can do anything about him with respect to the Goldman-Brown murders. I'm not saying anyone should demand vigilante justice on Simpson. But short of someone confessing to setting up OJ, it'll be difficult to dissuade me from believing that he did it.

"Innocent until proven guilty applies to guilt with respect to the law."

--

"...If the accused person hadn't already been caught on hidden microphone admitting to wrongdoing and having made plans to leave the country to seek therapy specifically for the things they were being accused of."

------

That's it, right there. I am well within my legal rights to say "Harvey Weinstein is a piece of shit." No court can touch me for saying so. The hidden mic of Weinstein acting like a piece of shit is good enough "proof" for me.

We're not discussing isolated events and situations here, with Weinstein, nor Signore, nor Knowles, nor Ailes, O'Brien, or Cosby. In all those situations there was more than enough evidence for at least the court of public opinion to get a deciding vote. Legally, the guilty can get off scott-free, due to loopholes, technicalities, utter privilege, and such.

I'm not for convicting ANYBODY accused or charged with sexual assault without solid evidence, but I don't think any of the predators we've named in this thread are innocent based on everything reported. They got away with their behavior long enough... WAY long enough. I feel there is enough evidence at least for me to side with the "alleged" victims in these cases.

It matters in making those guilty pay for their crimes, yes, but little else.

Roman Polansky is still a child rapist in my view, based on all the reports and testimonies. But, I guess it doesn't truly matter since it can't be proven in a Court of Law since, y'know, he used his wealth and privilege to get out of the country and remains in exile to avoid punishment for his disgusting crime.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard demanded of those participating in the trial process as judge or jury. The rest of us can form impressions and opinions well in advance of such stringent, often unrealistic standards. We can even act upon them.

People lose their jobs all the time in absence of court trials. Marriages break up. Children get separated from their families, no trial necessary.

And hey, it's not as if innocent people don't wind up in jail all the time regardless of our exacting yet often curiously warped system of justice. "Proven in a court of law" has next to nothing to do with "true."

When caught on mic admitting things. When his wife walks out on him. Yeah. I think he’s guilty.

This whole ‘proof’ crap.

It allowed Saville to get away with it. It’s allowed this guy to get away with it. Their status and money means that proof becomes more difficult because they abuse on every level - the actual abuse, the abuse of position to make sure they are not found out, the abuse of position to destroy the person who accuses them.

Give them the benefit of doubt until proven guilty? Sod off.

I’m sick of hearing this shit. I’m sick of hearing how men can abuse multiple women. I’m sick of hearing about crap like what happened in Rochdale. I’m sick of people not growing a spine and doing things about these monsters until many, many people’s live have been destroyed. I’m sick of people saying ‘what about waiting for proof in court’.

Those that are in positions of trust should do something at the earliest opportunity. Those that get asked by a person to help them when accused - talk to this girl, do this, do that, and the request keeps coming up - you would have to be a complete moron to not realise pattern is emerging about the guy.

And now the backlash starts for the shows associated with Weinstein as Amazon cancels a show The Weinstein Company was producing, lest he profit. I firmly agree the man should be in prison and I hate to see him profit at all, but this hurts a lot of other folks too that had nothing to do with his crimes. DC did something similar with the reprints of Justice League being cancelled that Gerard Jones worked on right after his arrest for child pornography (though Amazon didn't stop selling any of the books he wrote). Surely there's a way to funnel the funds for the perpetrator into a charity while paying the other folks that are not guilty of his crime.

Many years ago, a friend was taking acting classes. The guy who ran the course was in his late fifties or early sixties. He'd had shirts made up for his students, which featured the name of the school and a caricature of his face. On women, this image tended to be centered on the left breast.

One of his "cute" things to do when talking with a female student was to say his nose was itching, and then scratch the nose on the drawing on the shirt she was wearing.

The reaction back then (early 80s) was to shrug it off and say "Oh, that's just him." Today, I expect the reaction would most likely be stronger. And rightly so.

There are a few moronic reactions being made here by those that are very obviously playing the ostrich card.

Most are basing their opinions, theories, innuendos, etc. on what has been spoon fed to them by certain unreliable and/or heavily biased sources. Stop being obtuse... On purpose.

These relatively few instances in which the accused was stupid enough to display their guilt deserve public ridicule & they will eventually get their just desserts.

That said, I'm not talking about those cases. I'm talking about the ones that require more than just "he said, she said."

I can completely understand (and know first hand) about believing someone that you know personally that has gone through similar circumstances. These people need the support of loved ones through their tribulations.

They do not need the support of perfect strangers who jump on certain bandwagons to join a "cause" based on unproven allegations.

When it comes to things like rape, harassment, murder and other such horrible crimes, history has shown that there have been many cases in which the accused have been found guilty & later it was learned that they were innocent.

I certainly do not blame the condemnation that occurs when a person is found guilty of such horrible crimes when they have been given every chance to defend themselves properly in a court of law. That's USUALLY how the justice system works & for the most part I see it as a positive thing.

That said, even the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt ("sod off," indeed!) while they are going through the justice process.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone accused of a crime being allowed to continue trying to a make a living legally. If, however, they are eventually proven to be guilty in a court of law, then I would certainly support a system that would force the guilty party to make restitution in some manner.

There is a great amount of blind stupidity involved in condemning someone without actual proof & not allowing someone to attempt to defend themselves.

Stop bringing up other stuff. I'm not arguing against the cases in which the accused has either admitted to the crime or there is absolutely no doubt (Roman Polanski admitted to his crime, did he not?). I'm focusing only on the cases in which the accused has been proclaimed guilty & ostracized based on unproven allegations.

Like I say elsewhen... If, in the end, the subject is PROVEN to be guilty in a Court of Law... Then & ONLY then should condemnation, ridicule, blacklisting, etc., occur.

It may appear otherwise, but I am NOT saying people cannot have their opinions. After all, our illustrious host has been known for believing in opinions... INFORMED opinions. How can anyone be fully INFORMED if they don't have all of the facts presented?

I'm focusing only on the cases in which the accused has been proclaimed guilty & ostracized based on unproven allegations.

That may be what you meant, but that's not what you wrote:

QUOTE:

It doesn't really matter (in the sense of being proof positive) how many accusers step up. It doesn't really matter how many people BELIEVE the accusers & BELIEVE the accusations.

What truly MATTERS is what is proven in a Court of Law. If, in the end, the subject is PROVEN to be guilty in a Court of Law... Then & ONLY then should condemnation, ridicule, blacklisting, etc., occur.

This is an absolute statement with no qualifiers. If you are going to accuse people of being moronic, at least check what you wrote.

No one here is suggesting that people should be condemned without proof. What they are taking issue with is your statement that proof can only come in the form of a guilty verdict. That is a risible statement. And it may or may not be what you meant, but it is certainly what you wrote.

With regard to my earlier statement about the problem with thinking that sexual harassment being a Hollywood problem, the National Park Service recently conducted a survey regarding harassment of their employees:

Hard to say this is one of those cases of "he said, she said" when at least 30 women have come forward and three of which have said Weistein raped them. Weistein isn't even denying his guilt either, he's come out and said he needs help (and asked for a second chance which is incredulous as he's had decades of chances). He's only denying what would likely wind up with him going to prison, ie the criminal ones that go beyond civil suits like the women, including Rose McGowan, that have accused him of rape, and saying it was all consensual, as if giving women the choice of having sex with you or losing their job is ever consensual.

Yes, there are cases where the accused is innocent, but how many times do those involve the number of women we've seen in this Weistein case or the Cosby one? These women's stories aren't us being spoon fed by the media, but the actual stories from the victims. When it's one woman, yes, you might be talking about someone with a vendetta against the accused that's dragging them through hell out of revenge, but this is hardly one of those instances. They have Weinstein on tape saying things these women have accused him of.

It is deeply shameful for these women to come forward with these stories as often women are just accused of trying to destroy the man's life or making the stories up just to sue (as indeed they have been by staunch Cosby defenders who refuse to believe he's capable of the rapes of which he's been accused). Many of these women in this case have already settled and have nothing to gain by coming forward and a lot to lose. Women have been blackballed in Hollywood for less.

I'm going to believe the women in cases like this, until it's proven otherwise.

It feels good to see a corrupt, powerful bastard brought down in such an epic manner. To see his famous friends race for the exits. And all this happened in the court of public opinion. People power! Good story, and probably it will lead to a better Hollywood. I think Weinstein is also seen as a surrogate for Trump, who should have fallen many months ago with the revelation of the Access Hollywood tapes. And until that bastard is driven out of office, the public will have an appetite for the downfall of other people like Weinstein. But then what happens by this time next year when we run out of Weinstein-level villains? Maybe rock-stars and rappers would do. I wouldn't mind seeing Justin Beiber forced back home (sorry, Canada). After that, who else do we go after on Twitter? Anybody who has ever said a not-nice thing to anybody else?

False rape accusations are laughably rare given the rhetorical reliance on it prevalence in rapist apologia. Rapes outnumber false reports of rape 100 to 1.

I vacated an apartment a few years ago after my landlady began writing on her Facebook page that I wouldn't stop pestering her for sex. (I never asked her for sex.) It turned out she had schizoaffective disorder and moved to California because God told her over Ebay to marry FAMILY GUY creator Seth MacFarlane. (She was banned from the studio audience of his live sitcom which taped at the time.) She was a neighborhood pariah for accusing somebody of grabbing her boob at a barbecue while they were exchanging a chihuahua.

She also claimed to have converted to Judaism. While I lived there I suggested she actually talk to a rabbi about it, because, uh, she hadn't, and also because many rabbis are licensed therapists. She met three rabbis together, and left, because, as she claimed, one of them grabbed her boob.

There is probably a 90% chance she's not telling the truth about either guy grabbing her boob. Mayne 95%. There's a 100% chance I never asked her for sex or whatever she told other people.

And YET... She's exactly the kind of person a predator would predate. Men assault crazy women in public precisely because it's preposterous. If she ever pressed charges against some poor bastard, I couldn't rule out the possibility. I'd consider providing the defendant with the Seth MacFarlane intel (she'd say that under oath without hesitating), but I'd also make sure to weigh all the evidence on her side fairly despite my personal experience with her, because sexual assault happens a lot.

There's something heartwarming about seeing all these actors, some of whom have held on to degradation and humiliation for decades, stepping forward and deservedly plunging their knives into Weinstein bloated corpus. It's like Murder on the Orient Express.

@Michael: I made the statement about focusing because I wasn't interested in debating about subjects that have either admitted their guilt or there is absolutely no question about guilt because of that.

My main point was truly about condemnation, etc. occurring before one can be LEGALLY proclaimed guilty. I understand WHY some people feel the need to do so based on the information they are being given. It's just my own personal "thing" to learn about all of the facts (wherever possible) & let the law do it's thing (whenever possible).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum